F-14B acceleration correct?

[Donut]

Why did this place become a ghost town after my posts about my updated tests and results?

[Katj]

Why did this place become a ghost town after my posts about my updated tests and results?

We already knew that the current drag/thrust is incorrect, especially with stores. We also know that the Devs are aware and working on it. What do you want us to say?

See if you can find some inconsistencies after they update the FM, it's useless to do it now.

[Donut]

2 hours ago, Katj said:

We already knew that the current drag/thrust is incorrect, especially with stores. We also know that the Devs are aware and working on it. What do you want us to say?

See if you can find some inconsistencies after they update the FM, it's useless to do it now.

I am just concerned that they are unaware of all the issues.  Take a look at the following comments below...if my test results are accurate, there seems to be a significant problem with the FM, drag and/or thrust.  These comments make it seem that there is no issue and somehow my results are incorrect.

On 5/6/2021 at 11:02 AM, fat creason said:

 

The current FM is not that far off and it certainly isn't causing you lose fights, especially at BFM speeds.

 

 

On 5/14/2021 at 3:27 PM, fat creason said:

 

Obsessing over in-game performance numbers for a particular airframe down to the last ft/sec of excess power is silly to me. Losing a fight and immediately blaming it on the FM is silly to me.

 

 

On 5/17/2021 at 3:15 PM, fat creason said:

 

Tank drag was already pretty close

 

[AH_Solid_Snake]

Im afraid you're selectively reading posts that affirm that there is some unacknowledged issue thats torpedoing you during ACM. The point that has been made, repeatedly, is that there are acknowledged issues with the FM as of now, and both thrust and drag are affected. Yes this will affect how closely the jet follows the Ps curves from whatever source you'd care to find.

 

In a straight up BFM fight its a lot more about just reading what the jet is telling you and playing to its strengths, Im sure you're not claiming you just looked at the charts, jumped in the jet and max-performed it. So moving on from there, the FM is entirely usable at the moment and a contender in BFM, but it is due to get even better and you might just gain some more speed / energy out of it. Stick to the positives sometimes.

[Donut]

26 minutes ago, AH_Solid_Snake said:

Im afraid you're selectively reading posts that affirm that there is some unacknowledged issue thats torpedoing you during ACM. The point that has been made, repeatedly, is that there are acknowledged issues with the FM as of now, and both thrust and drag are affected. Yes this will affect how closely the jet follows the Ps curves from whatever source you'd care to find.

 

In a straight up BFM fight its a lot more about just reading what the jet is telling you and playing to its strengths, Im sure you're not claiming you just looked at the charts, jumped in the jet and max-performed it. So moving on from there, the FM is entirely usable at the moment and a contender in BFM, but it is due to get even better and you might just gain some more speed / energy out of it. Stick to the positives sometimes.

My concerns are not about ACM.  It's just the basics...does the Tomcat accelerate as it should, does drag/weight have an appropriate effect on the aircraft?  This all of course does influence ACM, for example; if you get to the merge guns only and jettison your tanks...my test shows that the aircraft loses performance.  The posts that I "selectively" chose tend to underplay the issue as if the FM is close to being accurate...which right now seems to be far from true.  
 

Nobody from HB has acknowledged my test or if there is indeed an issue with drag/weight being incorrectly applied to a clean jet or that drop tanks drag/weight seems to have an opposite effect.  To me, these are big issues.  We are already over two years into this...I don't think anyone wants to go any further without finally having the FM correct.

[AH_Solid_Snake]

1 hour ago, Donut said:

Nobody from HB has acknowledged my test or if there is indeed an issue with drag/weight being incorrectly applied to a clean jet or that drop tanks drag/weight seems to have an opposite effect.  To me, these are big issues.  We are already over two years into this...I don't think anyone wants to go any further without finally having the FM correct.

 

I think very early on in the thread it was acknowledged and there are top men working on it right now. As of now that answer remains accurate.

 

The F-14 remains in early access, and I would say is one of the extremely good examples of that process working as intended. It was released in a non-final state but without any game breaking bugs and with a large degree of functionality, and is evolving over time.

 

Saying we've waited [insert arbitrary deadline here] isnt how this works either im afraid.

 

On 5/5/2021 at 9:52 PM, fat creason said:

We're working hard on it and have been for a while, best answer I can give you at this time. I'll provide more info when the time is appropriate.

 

[Snappy]

6 hours ago, Donut said:

I am just concerned that they are unaware of all the issues.  Take a look at the following comments below...if my test results are accurate, there seems to be a significant problem with the FM, drag and/or thrust.  These comments make it seem that there is no issue and somehow my results are incorrect.

 

 

 

No offense, but your problem was, your tests (even your updated ones) were hardly scientific to begin with ( you said so yourself in the initial post )  and you argued basically  on hear - say, guessing  and "everything you read about about suggests otherwise" and so on.The next question is, how would you know the Hornet performance is accurate as it is now since you seem so bent on testing by comparing?

 

So it really is not big surprise that no one from Heatblur acknowledges your tests or test results. They would likely need a lot more scientific setup from you to do that and not just your feeling on how the Tomcat fares vs the Hornet in acceleration and so on.

 

That being said, this thread has evolved quite a bit in its course and covered several FM points.

Fat Creason stated that the FM is still being tuned, that it is work- intensive and will take time  and is best done in a specific order of things.

 

So my suggestion would be to wait what happens when the FM update gets released and not to dive prematurely into pessimism.

 

Regards,

Snappy

 

 

Edited June 8, 2021 by Snappy

[Donut]

9 minutes ago, Snappy said:

No offense, but your problem was, your tests (even your updated ones) were hardly scientific to begin with ( you said so yourself in the initial post )  and you argued basically  on hear - say, guessing  and "everything you read about about suggests otherwise" and so on.The next question is, how would you know the Hornet performance is accurate as it is now since you seem so bent on testing by comparing?

 

So it really is not big surprise that no one from Heatblur acknowledges your tests or test results. They would likely need a lot more scientific setup from you to do that and not just your feeling on how the Tomcat fares vs the Hornet in acceleration and so on.

 

That being said, this thread has evolved quite a bit in its course and covered several FM points.

Fat Creason stated that the FM is still being tuned, that it is work- intensive and will take time  and is best done in a specific order of things.

 

So my suggestion would be to wait what happens when the FM update gets released and not to dive prematurely into pessimism.

 

Regards,

Snappy

 

 

 

No offense taken, and I agree with you.  In no way did I think my "tests" should drive any type of FM change.  In a way, it was just to satisfy my own strange (and maybe unhealthy) fascination with acceleration as a performance metric...similiar to 0-60 times between a Porsche and Ferrari.  

You are right in that I should remain optimistic with hope that HB is already well aware of what my test showed (even if unscientifically), and have already addressed the discrepancies with payload configurations and drag.

 

[Donut]

So I know we have discussed this to death and are all aware that HB is working on the FM, acceleration, and drag issues.

 

I ran a few more acceleration tests for the heck of it though from Mach 0.5 to 0.8 and this time included the F-14A.  I am not going to go in depth with the testing and results, but what I did find is that both the A and B Tomcats had the exact same times/acceleration.

 

Maybe the addition of the A messed something up or both the A and B are using the same FM right now...just more food for thought.

[Harlikwin]

1 hour ago, Donut said:

So I know we have discussed this to death and are all aware that HB is working on the FM, acceleration, and drag issues.

 

I ran a few more acceleration tests for the heck of it though from Mach 0.5 to 0.8 and this time included the F-14A.  I am not going to go in depth with the testing and results, but what I did find is that both the A and B Tomcats had the exact same times/acceleration.

 

Maybe the addition of the A messed something up or both the A and B are using the same FM right now...just more food for thought.

 

That doesnt seem to match my anecdotal experience. I mean FM to me aerodynamics which should be similar aside from the thrust from the engines which seems rather different. 

[Donut]

25 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

 

That doesnt seem to match my anecdotal experience. I mean FM to me aerodynamics which should be similar aside from the thrust from the engines which seems rather different. 

I don't doubt you at all...and of course there may have been an error in my testing.  It was very simple and reproducible though...15C, 29.92, clear skies, no wind, 5,000ft MSL, full fuel,  0.5 to 0.8 with full AB and time it.

[captain_dalan]

Then record the experiment in a video to demonstrate the methodology and post it here. It will make diagnostics much easier.

[Donut]

11 hours ago, captain_dalan said:

Then record the experiment in a video to demonstrate the methodology and post it here. It will make diagnostics much easier.

I have never recorded video before, but I have attached track files for review.

F-14AClean.trk F-14APylons.trk F-14BClean.trk F-14BPylons.trk

[maxsin72]

Is there any changement of the flight model with the new update of today? Thx

[fat creason]

No. It will be in changelog when it is....or maybe I'll leave it out and see if you guys even notice 

Edited June 16, 2021 by fat creason

[Donut]

1 hour ago, fat creason said:

No. It will be in changelog when it is....or maybe I'll leave it out and see if you guys even notice 

 

Your work on the FM is greatly appreciated and I couldn't even begin to imagine the complexity behind it all.

 

With all due respect though...with the issues noted throughout this topic and others (turn rate,etc), the FM changes should bring incredibly noticeable changes.  I think it would feel like a new plane.

[maxsin72]

The word "when" is the most mysterious of the whole thing.

For the rest i think that if there are changes it will be impossible not to notice.

2 hours ago, fat creason said:

No. It will be in changelog when it is....or maybe I'll leave it out and see if you guys even notice 

 

 

[TLTeo]

2 hours ago, fat creason said:

maybe I'll leave it out and see if you guys even notice

This would greatly amuse me, and it would make for an excellent social experiment too

[Donut]

So with the latest update I saw that ED...

• Added new pitot model implementation (Correct KIAS, KCAS, altitude calculation)

I was curious as to what this did so I ran my tests again and the results are interesting.

 

Whatever ED did seems to have affected the Tomcat as well.  The acceleration results I get now are different than my original ones.  The Tomcat is faster (at least what is indicated by TS speed in the info bar).  Most importantly though, I am not seeing the drag anomalies as indicated earlier in this topic.  All acceleration, speeds, and drag effects seem correct at this time.  
 

So... maybe everything was always correct and as @fat creason has stated, the FM isn't too far off as is.  It seems that just how speeds were indicated was wrong.

[IronMike]

1 hour ago, Donut said:

So with the latest update I saw that ED...

• Added new pitot model implementation (Correct KIAS, KCAS, altitude calculation)

I was curious as to what this did so I ran my tests again and the results are interesting.

 

Whatever ED did seems to have affected the Tomcat as well.  The acceleration results I get now are different than my original ones.  The Tomcat is faster (at least what is indicated by TS speed in the info bar).  Most importantly though, I am not seeing the drag anomalies as indicated earlier in this topic.  All acceleration, speeds, and drag effects seem correct at this time.  
 

So... maybe everything was always correct and as @fat creason has stated, the FM isn't too far off as is.  It seems that just how speeds were indicated was wrong.

 

Correct - hence we do not really react to such tests as provided by you - even though we do appreciate it, read it out of interest, note it down, etc. But, as Creason said before, we have way better ways to test that, without even launching DCS. If we then get mixed into such results, we are thus in reality starting to discuss unknowns, partial or total, if you like. That was the point of pointing out: the indications that you guys have at hand, cannot be fully trusted. What can are the internal tests, scripts etc we use to verify and compare, which unfortunately you cannot have. Hence, unfortunately, you guys will always have to play catch up with us in this regard. And all we can offer sometimes is: trust us that we a) acknowledge what you guys post b) care deeply about fixing what in return really turns out as wrong and c) know what we are doing. This is of course incredibly unfair to those of you with such deep interest, it would be nice to take you "along the factory" one day, show you "see, here we do this here we do that", etc. to give you a tour. Unfortunately, due to the nature of our work being digital, and code not being able to be shared, this is not really possible. 

It is great that ED made these fixes, as it also perfectly demonstrates why we cannot really react to such tests. They do raise our eyebrows, they do make us investigate, but this also takes time. As drag is being adjusted anyway, all we could answer to your tests atm would have been "ok, thanks." Which means nothing at all. When we answer, we like to give you more than that of course (we did start to investigate your findings). In this case of course you found your own answer in the meantime, which is lucky but ofc is rarely the case in this situation of what devs can see vs what players can see.

It is a good demonstration of how scewed perception can be from reality sometimes (and none of it is your fault really). And while it pains me that you as users are put at a disatvantage because of it, when trying to verify these things, I can assure you at the same time that when it does correlate or point towards things we can verify on our side, we do address it. Which is the goal of this entire exercise. You guys noticed the performance being off and you were right in principle. We followed suit by going into a lengthy process of fixing it, which, as we established by now, really takes a lot of time, due to the ripple effect everything has in terms FM. It is a painful procedure, and I can only bow my head to Creason and Victory for putting so much time into it. Why am I saying this: simply, because we have to be aware that threads like these - after we said "we are on it", really serve more to help you better understand, than us to fix stuff (which ofc is fine and we are happy to do that). Now, I am not saying that there is no useful feedback in this thread for us, there certainly is - and even if it wasn't, we would still appreciate your feedback, your tests, your time and your passion you devote to the F-14. We really do. And most certainly we also do learn new things from the exchange with you guys, always. But sometimes it is also important to put things into perspective. The outlook being: we're on it, and it will get fixed. You have to understand guys, and I think most of you do: we really, really want you to be 100% happy with the Tomcat.

Thank you all so much again for your great feedback, for your very kind patience and for the avid discussions. Please keep bringing it on!

Edited June 17, 2021 by IronMike

[Donut]

21 minutes ago, IronMike said:

 

Correct - hence we do not really react to such tests as provided by you - even though we do appreciate it, read it out of interest, note it down, etc. But, as Creason said before, we have way better ways to test that, without even launching DCS. If we then get mixed into such results, we are thus in reality starting to discuss unknowns, partial or total, if you like. That was the point of pointing out: the indications that you guys have at hand, cannot be fully trusted. What can are the internal tests, scripts etc we use to verify and compare, which unfortunately you cannot have. Hence, unfortunately, you guys will always have to play catch up with us in this regard. And all we can offer sometimes is: trust us that we a) acknowledge what you guys post b) care deeply about fixing what in return really turns out as wrong and c) know what we are doing. This is of course incredibly unfair to those of you with such deep interest, it would be nice to take you "along the factory" one day, show you "see, here we do this here we do that", etc. to give you a tour. Unfortunately, due to the nature of our work being digital, and code not being able to be shared, this is not really possible. 

It is great that ED made these fixes, as it also perfectly demonstrates why we cannot really react to such tests. They do raise our eyebrows, they do make us investigate, but this also takes time. As drag is being adjusted anyway, all we could answer to your tests atm would have been "ok, thanks." Which means nothing at all. When we answer, we like to give you more than that of course (we did start to investigate your findings). In this case of course you found your own answer in the meantime, which is lucky but ofc is rarely the case in this situation of what devs can see vs what players can see.

It is a good demonstration of how scewed perception can be from reality sometimes (and none of it is your fault really). And while it pains me that you as users are put at a disatvantage because of it, when trying to verify these things, I can assure you at the same time that when it does correlate or point towards things we can verify on our side, we do address it. Which is the goal of this entire exercise. You guys noticed the performance being off and you were right in principle. We followed suit by going into a lengthy process of fixing it, which, as we established by now, really takes a lot of time, due to the ripple effect everything has in terms FM. It is a painful procedure, and I can only bow my head to Creason and Victory for putting so much time into it. Why am I saying this: simply, because we have to be aware that threads like these - after we said "we are on it", really serve more to help you better understand, than us to fix stuff (which ofc is fine and we are happy to do that). Now, I am not saying that there is no useful feedback in this thread for us, there certainly is - and even if it wasn't, we would still appreciate your feedback, your tests, your time and your passion you devote to the F-14. We really do. And most certainly we also do learn new things from the exchange with you guys, always. But sometimes it is also important to put things into perspective. The outlook being: we're on it, and it will get fixed. You have to understand guys, and I think most of you do: we really, really want you to be 100% happy with the Tomcat.

Thank you all so much again for your great feedback, for your very kind patience and for the avid discussions. Please keep bringing it on!

 

Thank you for such a wonderful response.

 

Lesson learned...leave it to the professionals and trust in Heatblur.

[IronMike]

11 minutes ago, Donut said:

Thank you for such a wonderful response.

 

Lesson learned...leave it to the professionals and trust in Heatblur.

 

Well - of course please do keep questioning us. It is very important that we get held to higher standards as well. It is in the human nature to become complacant, although we try our best that we do not ofc. You guys are our real insurance that we never could though! And we are incredibly greatful for that and always will be. Please never stop being critical and investigative.

Thank you!

Edited June 17, 2021 by IronMike

[Mistang]

The structural limit of the f 14 is 6.5g per the charts posted. The dcs f 14 is even more a beast than real life.

 

Im a cat person, I don't care, but it is definitely exaggerated. A real f 14 would never go above 6g. And even if pilots say otherwise it's all muscle memory and reflex to them, they don't refute the test data, they are just giving their simplification.

 

Everyone who designed the f14 is dead so we'll never speak to an actual engineer.

[fat creason]

6 minutes ago, Mistang said:

The dcs f 14 is even more a beast than real life.

 

Im a cat person, I don't care, but it is definitely exaggerated. A real f 14 would never go above 6g. And even if pilots say otherwise it's all muscle memory and reflex to them, they don't refute the test data, they are just giving their simplification.

 

Read the rest of this thread please. Then post videos that demonstrate your claims, otherwise this post is meaningless. Thank you for your concern!

Edited June 17, 2021 by fat creason

[Spurts]

3 minutes ago, Mistang said:

The structural limit of the f 14 is 6.5g per the charts posted. The dcs f 14 is even more a beast than real life.

 

Im a cat person, I don't care, but it is definitely exaggerated. A real f 14 would never go above 6g. And even if pilots say otherwise it's all muscle memory and reflex to them, they don't refute the test data, they are just giving their simplification.

 

Everyone who designed the f14 is dead so we'll never speak to an actual engineer.

That was not a structural limit, that was a Navy imposed operational limit.  The design limit was closer to 9G at 50,000lb and Grumman tested to 12G.  This is fairly common knowledge among those who have studied the Tomcat but would not be obvious to those who only know about published charts.  The F-14 has no G-Limiter at all.